TED Conversations

Nina Tandon

Research Scientist, cooper union

TEDCRED 500+
TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If your cells were used to grow an organ in the lab, is it still "your" organ?

Live TED Conversation: Join TED Fellow Nina Tandon

Nina Tandon is a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Laboratory for Stem Cells and Tissue Engineering, Adjunct Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Cooper Union, and current MBA candidate at Columbia Business School. She studies ways to use electrical signals to grow artificial tissues for transplants and other therapies.

This conversation will open at 1pm EDT on October 3rd, 2011.

Related Talks:
Topics: Live Conversation
+4
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Nina Tandon 500+

    • +3
    TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
    Oct 3 2011: Dear TED community: Thank you all for a very inspiring chat--the themes of intent, ownership, identity, and gratitude will be very much on my mind as I get back to work in the lab! Please do feel free to reach out to me any time if you would like to discuss these issues further, and let me know if you decide to start your own related conversation! In the meantime, may none of your non cancer cells become endangered species! Cheers! -Nina (ninatandon.com)

  • Rebecca Sullivan

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks took a medical research topic out of the lab and into the living room for me. Reading the story of how the use of her cell line effected her surviving family members long after her death challenged everything I thought I understood about individual identity . I was very moved by how how access to education, economic challenges and faith all influence the perception of personhood and those same factors weigh heavily in the evolution of medical ethics.
    I am not sure the story changed my own sense of self as much as it broadened my notion of the possible variations that others might have on the sense of self. My time in the work force has been solely in medically related fields so I thought I was fairly knowledgable on issues in medical research in a general sense. I have new found interest and appreciation for the complex issues of medical research and follow stories like your own with new eyes, ears and heart.
  • thumb

    Tony Gruber

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: You pointed out 3 different examples of people making money off my blood, and these aren't the only ones: T use your words: "maitenance and transportation of said units very regulated and not cheap. The crossmatching is also an added cost."

    I'm not proud of the point I made, but it does cross my mind.
  • thumb

    Jeremy Hunter 20+

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I would say so. Just because your cells have been taken out of you, they do not cease to be yours. Even if you give the eventual organ as a donor, it will only belong to them on a superficial level.

  • Ali Jafri

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: I think it depends on whether you donated those cells or not, take blood donations for example, you can't control what your blood is used for, same thing for sperm donations; those are your cells but you stopped owning them the moment you gave them away. On the other hand, the lab that is doing such experiments is bound by ethics and should inform the 'donors' about what he's planning to do with their cells and respect their opinions. Cloning is a serious matter and Ethics committees should be involved.

  • Vasilios Nikolaidis

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Oct 3 2011: I humbly believe that it doesn't really matter if you "own" the created organ or not, because you never did own it. In the begining it was "yours" after your fathers "donation" to society "thru" your mother. I understand that maybe the whole issue is about the industrial organs that can be created at the laboratories so its just a another product who will become "mine" if I can afford it.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Vasilios, I think you're hitting on an important philosophical undercurrent that seems to be flowing through this conversation--who "owns" the cells within our very own person? What constitutes the idea of property itself?

      • Vasilios Nikolaidis

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Oct 3 2011: Hi Nina, recently I had an expeirience of a quadrple bypass surgery and as you know the transpalnted vasculars were from my own body but I had to have the economic wealth to get in the OR . Unfortunately the med induastry is (at least in Greece) philosophically positioned "If you HAVE, you will LIVE" but on the other side and to answer to your question (allways humbly and with respect) we don;t "own" none of our cells, Ibelieve that we have borrowed them from the universe and we have the obligation to treat them well and improve them so when we have to borrow them to the next generations they must be improved so scientists can make them better and suffering one day will become less and less for human beings.

  • Yogesh Karira

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: A very interesting topic indeed.. your cells belong to your body, not "You".. may sound a little philosophical..:)

  • Randy Damron

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I would have to say no. Will True has bought up the major points in my mind. I would like to mention identical twins... Both have the same genetic make up. Does the twin who was birthed first own the second?
  • thumb

    Saurabh Paliwal

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: Nina, thanks for raising this really interesting question, and to the other commenters and you for the engaging debate.

    There are a couple of interesting thoughts around this question...
    1) Is there an emotional attachment? My guess would be that people in general would not have as much of an emotional attachment to their cells, as to an organ derived from them. So, while people don't think about what happens to their blood cells after they've donated them, they would have more of an emotional attachment with an organ which was donated after being developed from their cells. Organs are limited in number, and more defined from the general populace's point of view. e.g. we often talk about heart failure, and rarely think about the cells that died.

    2) The use of the organ and consent regarding it: If the organ is being used in the lab for research and that is after the person's consent, I think they would be happy to 'let it go'.

    The interesting aspect comes in when the commercial angle is introduced. If a company were to make organs from your cells, and sell them, would people want 'royalty' on them? What if you had a certain mutation that made your cells incredibly rare and valuable? I don't know the answer to this, but worth a thought...

    • Josh Perkins

      • 0
      Oct 3 2011: Now the commercial angle is one I hadn't considered. However, we can see in certain fictional situations (e.g. Repo, The Genetic Opera) that there is an anxiety about people being trapped by a commercial power over their bodies.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Surabh, Thank you for synthesizing the emerging themes of intent (and its cousin prosperity), and identity!
  • thumb

    Juliette Zahn 50+

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: ......I would definitely own a clone of Tom Brady.


    Will True - super cool name !!

  • Green Power

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: As my cell is containg my unique DNA, it will affect the new body or organ..my characteristics will be transfered to the new body.. it is anyhow , my organ..

  • Sarah Snow

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I think I have claim to the cells that formed and developed in my body. With that being said I have no problem with donating blood and organs, as long as I know that I am donating them. People should be aware of what is happening to their bodies. If a clone of me was made, genetically she would be identical to me. The environment in which she would grow up in would not be identical to the one I was raised in. There would be differences between us. Just think about how neural connections form. Different interactions with the environment lead to neural differences between people. Cloned organs are not going to be exactly identical to ones developed in my body and even if they were, they were not developed in my body. I neither believe that I would have claim over a cloned "me" nor any lab generated organs. I do believe that some form of consent should be required from the one donating cells but donation does not equal entitlement to what is developed from the donation. The organs are not you.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Sarah, I agree with your sentiment--I really do hope more and more of us become more and more aware of the miracles that are going on inside our bodies every day!

      I wonder how our society's ideas about donation will change as our collective awareness shifts, in conjunction with ever evolving technological capabilities?

      • Sarah Snow

        • 0
        Oct 3 2011: I think education is crucial for changes in societal views on donation. I can not even fathom how a society with more information about how life works could deny the gloriousness of donation.

  • Aninta Ingram

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: Wouldn't the DNA go with the cell? Does the DNA change from yours to theirs when it becomes a part of another body?

  • R K

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: Holistically speaking, the body itself is not ours, if it was we would have full control over it and maybe become immortal. We only have partial control, we can exercise or eat right and try our best to keep it in good health. I am saying this after seeing my beloved wife being snatched away from us, she lost her long battle to cancer in spite of getting the best treatment available. She was young, just 34 years old and left behind a young son too. I have seen the helplessness in her eyes. She responded on and off, nothing was able to control the growth of those bad cells and ultimately the cells took control. Though medical science has advanced so much, we are way behind in finding a cure for all types of cancer. The researchers have still not been able to find out what gets triggered in a cell that it becomes cancerous and spreads to other cells, how that can be reversed and how that can be stopped. We still rely on primitive treatments like chemo therapy which not only kills the bad cells but healthy cells too. The scientists have not been fully able to separate good cells while giving treatment. I fully appreciate the efforts of scientists like you who are doing a noble job. Please continue the good work.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi RK, I am so sorry to hear about your loss--and it makes your point about our lives not ever really belonging to us ever the more poignant. I wish you and your son the very best, and thank you for your encouragement as we all plod along, doing our best to unravel the mysteries we have at hand with the "partial control" we have the power to exercise.
  • thumb

    Debra Smith 200+

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: I think that if I contribute the cells and you contribute your expertise, we should be partners to a certain extent. I want to be able to veto organs from my cells going into a mass murderer or a person who committed crimes against humanity in favour of a child who need it. I also think that if my cells have something particularly wonderful in them like Henrietta Lacks' did (the cells that never die) and you are able to profit from them that I should also gain something. I likely would choose to donate my portion but I would still like my contribution to be considered when profit is to be made.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Debra, I think you bring up an interesting point--the partnership between "raw materials" and "expertise"--it echoes the foundations of so much of human "productive" activity in these times in which the problems we aim to solve are bigger than any one person!
      • thumb

        Debra Smith 200+

        • 0
        Oct 3 2011: Few scientists would be willing to give up their claim to their intellectual property and ownership rights are key in most areas of life these days. Yes, the problems are bigger than one person, but why is it that those in authority think that the little guy is the disposable? Raw materials in this case are not just chemicals are they?

  • Adrian Stevens

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I think this is the same as organ-or sperm donation. You would donate your cells, knowing that they would be used to grow organs to help people. I would be as attached to those cells, or the organ grown out of it, as I am to my sperm or fingernails. It's a part of me that keeps regenerating, so I won't miss it or feel bad or jealous if they would be used to help someone else. The only condition would be that the organs grown wouldn't be used for commercial use.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Adrian, I think this captures some of the central issues here at hand--intent (donation vs commercial gain) and identity (and therefore possession). Thank you for sharing your personal thoughts about this! Let's see if fingernail donation ever becomes de rigueur!

  • Luis Velazquez

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: Having in mind that in 2015 almost none of my present cells will be there, and others will be in their place, i´m not the same during my life, not only in my thinking, but also in my biologic conformation, so, what´s the matter if it´s not part of me at the moment they generate it? It´ll be mine later, or a someone else part.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: Luis, thank you for bringing up a point I think is really important--our bodies are SO dynamic--so many of our body's cells are constantly engaging in the cycle of life at any given moment!

      It sounds to me as if you have a generous, long-term view of the cells and molecules that make up your body--I'm interested in hearing more about how you and others define your boundaries with the world!

  • suyash manjul

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: What I think is that, once I voluntarily give away my body cell, immediately I waive any rights whatsoever, except for the right to know what is happening with it and that too only to certain extent. However if my specifically my cell is needed and out of it a commercial benefit is being derived then I have the same rights in the product of my cell as I have in a copyright.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Suyash, Thank you for sharing your thoughts with the group! I am sensing a sense of connection, as opposed to ownership, for you--wanting to know what's happening with the cells even if you don't expect to own them?

  • Jon Chiu

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: I'd say no, an organ grown from a person's cells no longer belong to that person.

    A few commentors have pointed out the fact that the organ is grown outside of one's body. So the original donor can only claim the few donated cells, while the rest is the result of the work done to culture those cells into an organ.

    An analogy would be a child put up for adoption at birth. The biological parents can say that the newborn baby is theirs. But after being adopted, cared for, and raised by other parents, the grown individual is the child of the adpotive parents. At least that's what I would argue.

  • mansoor ahmed

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: Nina, I am not sure that the word "Yours" implies ownership or identity.
    In former case, my answer is yes, if it is not "donated"
    In latter case, my answers is no. Our identity is not just comprised of our genes, but it also includes the sequence of events occurred around us, our experiences and other variables.
  • thumb

    Modesto Reynoso Nedelchev

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: Intuitively, I wouldn´t say it´s yours, unless it is transplanted back into your body.

    Legally, it would depend on the agreement with the lab.

    Philosophically, if we assume it´s yours, then you can say that your grandson´s cells are also yours, and if we go further then we are all the possession of the first living organism.

  • Anthony Parisi

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I think it has to do with consent and information content. In a certain sense, the organ is using an information pattern that is a part of the person's body, and that information content seems like something that is owned by that person. While this would not render an organ grown in a lab the legal property of said person (unless, of course, that was part of the terms of the agreement with the lab) it would mean that copying that information without consent or under an unenforcable contract would constitute some sort of legal damage, and the value of the organ (or potential future organs) used might well be a good method of signifying the "loss" to the person in a legal sense. So, in a broad sense, it would not be "your" organ- all things being equal; but there could still be legal damages assigned should your cells be taken without your consent, or under a contract that was not enforceable.
  • thumb

    Silvia De Leon

    • +1
    Oct 3 2011: If you buy a used tire for you car, is it yours because you pay for it, or does it still belongs to the original car? When a mother gives birth to a child does she own that life? many seem to think so, but no one belongs to any one, symbolically maybe. A working organ whether it may be grown outside a human body or harvested from donor , can not work or do its job without a host, so who does it belong to; the human whose cells where used to grow it or the human who maintains it? If I donate blood, is it still my blood when its injected into some one else? I think nothing really belongs to us, nothing outside our bodies. Its amazing this question its been raised, we are as territorial as any creature on earth regardless of all our scientific achievements. How easy instinct takes over...mine! mine! its all mine! lol IF ITS NOT SUSTAINING YOUR OWN LIFE, THEN IT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU... I think.

  • Alex hunt

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I don't think humans put as much care into cells we can't see.. As some are making it out to be. What makes one cell superior to another? We cut our nails and hair without a second thought. Drink alcohol Or smoke which destroy our brain, liver, kidney, lung- cells. Most don't think of the consequence. So donating cells to potentially help someone Or ourselves with a new body part should be a no brainer. Put petty emotions and cellular greed aside and share. Help one another.

  • Brian LaVere

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: I believe providing cells to improve humanity and future generations is as easy as the concept of giving blood in an attempt to save a strangers life. Or organ donation or bone morrow. I have a friend that has struggled Esophageal Cancer for the last 5 years. I would love to be the one to offer my cells to science so he could have a brand new esophagus. This would eliminate his stent adjustments in his throat every 6 months and allow him to breath normal.

  • marc davis

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: NIna thank you for this amazing topic and opportunity to discuss it. Thank you to the intelligent thought provoking comments by everyone. this is awesome to have such responses to provoke new ideas and concepts. I will be thinking about everyone's comments for days.
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: Marc it is an honor for me to be able to participate in this forum, and I thank all of you for making this discussion so lively, I will have much food for thought myself as I return to lab myself!
  • thumb

    Marco Bena

    • +2
    Oct 3 2011: that cell is not mine, it's Life... or CreativeCommons, if you wish :-)

  • Chris Leamon

    • 0
    Oct 3 2011: This is a really though question. I think the answer lies in the DNA code. When you have a child he/she has a unique DNA code therefore is a separate entity. When you give blood you sign paper work giving consent for the blood to be used. That blood is then mixed into the recipient and although I am no expert wouldn't that blood eventually die out and be replaced with the recipients blood?
    The real question is can you copyright your own DNA code?

    I think for me it depends on what the original intent of the cell is being used for. Is it to make a profit? or help someone in need. If it is for profit then yes that cell is mine, if it is for NON-profit and used to help someone in need then how many would you like?
    • thumb

      Nina Tandon 500+

      • 0
      TED SpeakerTED FellowTEDx Organizer
      Oct 3 2011: hi Chris, like many others here, you are hitting upon some central themes of identity and intent--

      I can't help but ask: I'd be interested in hearing how your feelings of ownership might translate to the many billions of microbes living within your bodies, who do not share your genetic code?

      I'll offer that personally I don't think of my little gut microbes, for example as being "me" but instead view them as "friends" who help "my body" live... how about you? others?

      • Chris Leamon

        • 0
        Oct 3 2011: I agree, I don't see the little helpers and being part of me so much as they are along for the ride and for a mutual benefit.
Load more comments…